Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
the fourth and sing interest and there are so many pieces going on that you can't relate it at all to a green field version p3 project and then there are the difference between the row p3 and it is just so complicated and so we are excited to look at the potential, with the dpx and whatever benefit cans come out of it, and it is fantastic against the risks associated with the p3 because man if you mess up you can mess up really bad and so we are, excitesed to do that, and evaluation. and in addition to that, we do need help in figuring out, how to do all of this, with all of the interests of san francisco, and the development and fourth and king, and we have had a lot of discussion on that effort itself. but it does tie into all of this in a different timing so, i am stocked up on aspirin pills and i really am excited to have this hefty discussion but there is great potential there and we are looking forward to the partnership. >> thank you, director harper? >> yes, i concur a great deal with the directors on this and i think that you know the oldest saying, you know, if something sounds too
down and so it is intense but he can testified that we called, four of us three days in a row, and we got no response. and so the inspeckers came hours later. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, commissioners the matters are submitted. >> i don't see the evidence to base that. >> i move to deny the rehearing request. >> >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny both hearing requests. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0, both rehearing requests are denied and notices of decision and order shall be released. >> okay, thank you. >> so we will move on to item 5 a bc. these are three appeals filed by lagos, 13-130, 605 gonzalez drive. and 13-131 at 811 gonzalez drive.protesting the issuance on september 18, 2013, to parkmerced llc, tree removal permit (removal of one (1) tree with replanting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available). order no. 181658 >> you have three appeals filed and so have yo
be a policy decision for the board to make and we could draft the ordinance if you want. it is of rowing raw it would be a sworn statement from the tenant >> you could have a mechanism that it would be up to the landlord to prove that the tenant didn't want to return as a declaration for the landlord. presume bely when i mean currently right now there's a fire era temporary vooeks evocation and the landlord turns around and rent to son-in-law the tenant could foil a lawsuit against the landlord and i'm sure that's happened. i don't know. i guess it will be we have look at of time to think about it >> today and tomorrow we could forward this. >> and my final question has to do with the division of a residential unit for housing. it's on page 10 of the largest file. and i was just curious as to the rationale >> sure currently section 317 is the dwelling unit so the loss of group housing is tomato subject to the same as a it is the loss of the private housing so under the control substance as for any other dwelling unit. >> and group housing is currently often governed by the residential
terms showing that once again that is not accurate. we have now our second appeal in a row from a low-income household, and so tenants are extremely diverse ranging from extraordinarily poor to middle income and upper income, the same is true of tic owners. i won't repeat the rational that i articulated last time. i do think that this appeal points to perhaps the desirability of having more flexibility in the fee deferral. i know it's not part -- we can't do that as part of this appeal in term of deferring the fee and the law is pretty clear about the extent to which the department of public works can grant a fee deferral, but we've heard the argument in the last appeal and i think in this appeal as well that if someone is condo converting, they can then -- the value of their property increases and they could use some of their principal in that property to take out money and pay the fee, but as the appellant has articulated, that's not necessarily the case until the condo conversion happens, you may not be able to refinance at all, so i do think that it may make sense to have more fle
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)